Talk:Edward Colston

... and slave-trader.
The edit by has been reverted as "not discussed". So, per WP:BRD, let me open the discussion.

WP:LEAD says that the lead should be a succinct summary of the body content. The current text "was involved in the Atlantic slave trade" is weasel worded: he wasn't just vaguely associated with it as shareholder or even a non-executive director, he was the chief executive of the company. He was a slave-trader, no ifs, not buts. Is there really any credible basis to argue otherwise? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, and it's mealy-mouthed to suggest otherwise. His "involve[ment] in the Atlantic slave trade" consisted of, err, buying slaves. That makes one a slave trader. Unless we are on a spiral reductio ad absurdum to the point where the only slave traders are those captaining the ship or working out of Slave Square.  SN54129  11:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article went through a consensus, so any substantial change would probably need to go through another consensus. As SN5 pointed out, its correct in what it says, it's not weaselled. Govvy (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Where and when was this consensus arrived at? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead is a summary of the article body, and the article body needs to verifiable from reliable sources. Currently there is nothing in the body that would support adding that to the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. Colston was deputy governor of the Royal African Company. A slave-trading company. A company that traded in slaves. The sources cited in the article make it entirely clear that Colston derived a significant proportion of his wealth through the slave trade. I hove no idea why anyone should think it even remotely appropriate to try to play this down, but if they are going to, they are going to have to find better justifications than vague claims about 'consensus', and facile suggestions that the deputy director of a slave-trading company isn't a slave trader. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For clarity, "Deputy Governor" equated in modern terms to CEO, given that the Governor was the King. Cf Vice-Chancellor. "Major slave-trader" is an accurate summation of both the body content and the sources. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps, per the Daily Telegraph, a "prominent slave trader"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when do you feel that the Royal African Company was a slave trading company only?? You really need to review the article. Govvy (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't need to read the fucking article. I am fully aware of what the Royal African Company traded in, and what Colston traded in. And I've no idea what the heck you are trying to prove here, but I'd have to suggest that it is singularly ill-advised. You might do well to consider how this vacuous stonewalling in apparent defence of a major slave-trader might look if it were brought to the attention of WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I could probably spend the entire day finding sources which describe Colston as a slave trader. Given how common the description is though, I've got to ask are there actually any sources out there that suggest he wasn't? Because otherwise, It would seem rather a waste of time proving the obvious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't have to spend all day. Ten seconds on Google News search using "Edward Colston" "slave trader" gives hundreds of hits. Even the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph call him a slave trader. Others call him a people trafficker and mass-murderer but there is no need gild the lily (in reverse). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As you and others have said, "...was involved in the slave trade" are weasel words. They were apparently inserted to obscure his status as a then-prominent, and now historically significant, slaver who derived vast wealth from the transatlantic slave trade. Kronix1986 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, you shouldn't swear, even if you went to ANI, that might back fire on you. You really need to be careful. The editing you have applied to the article, seems to be removing the context and the citations. This is not helpful, you are effectively removing what I consider the better side of the man. Nothing is simply black and white, yet what you're doing is turning the article into that. People should read an article and make up their opinion on the evidence that the article shows. Not one side of what can be created, the whole picture needs to be there, not your POV pushing ideology. Govvy (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * When I see a Wikipedia article attempting to whitewash slavery, I will swear all I fucking like. As for the 'evidence the article shows', I personally would prefer that readers were also made aware of the evidence the article omits, and the selective use of sources employed to create it.


 * And likewise, when I see such selective use of sources accompanied by such close paraphrasing of the source cited to almost certainly be a copyright violation, I will act in the best interests of Wikipedia by removing the content, until such time as it can be determined that copyright isn't breached. And at that point, ask, even if it weren't in violation of copyright, why a source documenting the horrors of the Atlantic slave trade has been cherry-picked solely for passing commentary on the benefits of said horrors to the 'Planters'. I suggest you self-revert, before this blows up in your face. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * And further to this, if you really want a further explanation for why I stated that "We cannot possibly cite David Hughson's passing mention as RS for Colson's expenditure in 'charitable institutions'" I suggest you read WP:RS, and then come up with an explanation as to how someone we apparently know next to nothing about (including his real name), can, in a passing mention of Colston in a book published 87 years after Colston's death, possibly be considered a reliable source on how much of Colston's wealth was 'expended' on 'charitable institutions'. Is Hughson (or whatever his name was) also a reliable source for the 'miraculous' incident with a dolphin that whatever-his-name-was thinks merits his only further commentary on Colston? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Slave trader" should definitely be in the lead. The subject's slave trading activities are extensively discussed in the body. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Edward Colston is a historically significant slave trader, and is, outside Bristol, known primarily for his slave trading. Within Bristol he may be known for his philanthropy, but even this is controversial, as several institutions he funded have, in recent years, removed his name from their bodies...because of his slave trading. The majority of his fortune was derived from the slave trade; he was one of the most prominent and leading slavers of 17th century Britain.
 * I'm still not sure why people persist in trying to re-introduce the weasel words "involved in the slave trade" in the lede, when it's much more succinct and accurate to refer to him as a "slave trader". Neither do I understand why an article about a slaver needs a paragraph dedicated to slavers' justification for enslaving Africans, including what amounted to, "The slavers weren't that bad - they only sent Africans to work in the blazing sun because they thought black people were better suited to hot climates". Kronix1986 (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote: The majority of his fortune was derived from the slave trade. He already had a large fortune from his family estate, made money with other commodities. He certainly made a lot of money from slave trading, but there is no conclusive evidence provided in the article or online from what I have seen to suggest it was his majority earner.
 * I am still confused why people call "involved in the slave trade" weasel words. You're either involved in the slave trade or not. It's hardly weasel. It's a straight up fact that he was involved with the trade of slaves into Britain and the Caribbean. Nothing weasel about it! Govvy (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are either a slave trader or not. It is a straight up fact that Colston was a slave trader. Why add extra words, when a simple statement of fact will do? As for what proportion of Colston's fortune was directly derived from his slave-trader activities, I'm not sure it really matters a great deal, since he was a slave trader, and trading in slaves is still slave-trading even if you make a loss at it. Slave-trading isn't morally repugnant just because it is done for profit, it is repugnant because of what it does to other people's lives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As I have said previously, there is a big difference between being involved as shareholder (like Samuel Pepys) and being involved as an executive. Morally of course, there is no difference, but the practical difference is that Colston had first-hand knowledge of the logistics of human trafficking: it was is job to make it happen, he had precise awareness of the consequences. "Involved" is blatant weasel wording; in fact simply to call him a slave-trader is like calling Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán a drug-dealer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

From "It is now common knowledge that much of Colston's wealth derived from the trade and labor of slaves.10...Writers now mostly describe Colston as a slave trader and philanthropist, instead of merely as a philanthropist." The footnote states: Historian Roger Ball's analyses of slave transports on the Royal African Company ships have been instrumental in this. See... Should use of works by Bristol Radical History Group:, be reevaluated? fiveby(zero) 15:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As I commented above, I'm not entirely sure that it really matters a great deal what proportion of Colston's wealth was directly derived from slave trading. If sources differ over this, we should probably say so: by citing such sources, and noting that they differ. My point is that regardless of how much of Colston's wealth was earned from his slave-trading activities, that is what he has become known for, and much commented on in recent years, as a more critical look has been taken at past history that some evidently preferred to forget - as deputy governor of the Royal African Company - someone who "was actively involved in decisions concerning the transportation of many thousands of enslaved Africans". That is what matters. Because that is what sources (all sorts of sources, from all sorts of perspectives) consider significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? He was a slave trader that is what he is known for, to omit this from the lead is disingenuous at best—blindlynx 21:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

David Hughson as a source
I see that the article has been fully protected for a week, meaning that edits can only be made by an administrator, and by consensus, per the Protection policy. Since the issue with the lede is moot for now (it would appear that consensus supports the current version, but if it doesn't there is certainly no consensus for the earlier version), we should probably discuss more fully another issue I raised above, that has rather got lost in the kerfuffle: namely the use of David Hughson as a source for a paragraph in the 'Philanthropic works' section: "David Hughson, writing in 1808, described Colston as "the great benefactor of the city of Bristol, who, in his lifetime, expended more than 70,000L. [£] in charitable institutions",[17] equivalent to £5,581,350 in 2020.[18]". Now, this statement appears to be superficially true - Hughson (or someone writing under that name) certainly appears to have written the words quoted. But why is our article quoting Hughson? And then conveniently, via a calculation involving the UK Retail Price Index, giving an (inappropriately precise) equivalent in year 2020 Pounds Stirling for Hughson's '70,000L' figure?

As Reliable sources makes clear, article content needs to be cited (or at least citable) to "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And I'd have to suggest that beyond trivially being reliable as a statement for Hughson's opinion on Colston, the source cited fails to meet Wikipedia requirements for sourcing on almost every criteria specified. Don't take my word for it though - decide for yourself. The book is currently viewable online, via Google Books, but for convenience, I'll quote the relevant passage, in full, here:

"At Mortlake are the handsome house and gardens of Mr. Franks; and there is an antient house, let to Miss Aynscomb, which is said to have been the residence of Oliver Cromwell; but which was certainly the residence, in the last century, of that excellent man Edward Colston Esq. the great benefactor of the city of Bristol, who, in his lifetime, expended more than 70,000L. in charitable institutions. He died there in 1721 *".

The above passage is accompanied by a footnote:

"* The history of his being preserved on his voyage home from the Indies by means of a dolphin stopping a hole in the ship, was very providential; and the boys educated at Bristol wear a brass dolphin on their breasts, thus celebrating his miraculous preservation."

That would appear to be the sum total of what Hughson has to say about Colston. A passing mention in what amounts to being an anecdote-filled historical travel guide, written by someone about whom we know next to nothing, in a book published 87 years after Colston's death. Not, in my opinion, an even remotely reliable source for a statement about Colston's charitable 'expenditure'. And not, as far as I can see, of any great merit as a source for an opinion on Colston either, given when it was written. I could, via the usual wiki-jargon, lay out in detail the many ways Hughson fails WP:RS, but frankly, I'd have to suggest that there are almost none in which he doesn't. We have precisely zero evidence that he had any expertise on Colston whatsoever. Accordingly, I suggest that we arrive at the inevitable consensus sooner rather than later, and ask an admin to consign Hughson's anecdotal commentary to article history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * From what I understand of David Hughson writings, some of it was imperfect, and there is some odd language, however he was fairly well regarded as an author enough. His works consisted of second hand information mixed with his own primary works. The source provided works to established his residency, and that he donated his wealth to the city of Bristol, you should be able to work with the source instead of destroying it. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That utterly fails to address the points I've laid out in great detail as to the merits of Hughson as a source for the specific material he is being cited for, so here's how it's going to go. Given your self-evident unwillingness to actually respond in any meaningful way to the points I'm making, if nobody else disagrees then as soon as this article comes out of full protection, I'm going to remove the paragraph sourced to Hughson, as clearly non-WP:RS. At that point you will have two choices - either take it to WP:RSN (or other form of dispute resolution), or accept that your stonewalling tactics haven't worked. You have been repeatedly told at ANI that you hare misunderstanding policies, and that you need to take note of what other people say. Do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The source is not suitable due to its age, and should be removed. This also creates NPOV problems, as the subject's philanthropy needs to be put into proper context. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense in removing a source because of the age of it. You need to make a better argument than that for removing a source. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, it is up to you to provide a justification for including 'Hughson', based upon WP:RS policy, taking in mind WP:ONUS, and actually addressing the points already raised here. Stonewalling isn't going to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What on Earth are you talking about? What I said was pretty straight forward. From a source that's five minutes old or a source that's 50 years old. An age of a source isn't a reason to delete a source... :/ Govvy (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since we seem to be entering into WP:CIR territory here, I'm not going to bother trying to engage with you further. Take it to WP:RSN if you really want. Otherwise, drop it. Pseudonymous comments in passing in early-19th-century travel guides, written 87 years after the events described, aren't RS for anything of consequence, as should be self-evident to anyone actually capable of usefully contributing to an article of this nature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And again, you have the wrong end of the stick in everything I say, stop trying to insult me with your stupid commentary. Govvy (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your continued refusal to usefully engage in discussion is duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Really charming how you go to ANI, have it repeatedly explained to you that you're in the wrong, and come back with this. --JBL (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've now removed the paragraph in question, per the reasoning above. I'd strongly recommend anyone wishing to restore it gains an actual consensus to do so first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)